I can't speak for anyone else whatsoever on this forum but I believe that it is not conducive to preserving our race. Not just our race, mind you, but any race. I'm not coming from a religious standpoint on this I just think that if everyone were to "mix the pot" so to speak that all parties involved would lose their heritage, culture and history. If you put a bunch of crayons on a melting pot the color turns brown. Although this is somewhat of a lewd analogy, just because homosexual activity can occur, doesn't mean it should occur.

Aside from those reasons the perhaps more important reason is that we would lose our biological identity, the very thing that makes us what we are. We are already complete, and combining our identity with another's would render it impure and diluted.

I hope this answers your question. I am sure there are far more knowledgeable and versed people on this board on this subject that can give you a better answer than I. Just ask.

Now, on the subject of the video that I just watched, and the books that I have not read:

I found it neat that the best point was made in the still-frame preview of the video. "Races" were created through divergent biological evolution. This basically means that our "family tree" has some geographically based "chunking" and separations. Does this equate to our modern notion of race? I'm not sure.

The "modern notion" of race is that it doesn't exist, and even if it does, it's 'superficial' and as such, there are no significant behavioral consequences. This has everything to do with overly idealistic social engineering and nothing to do with the scientific evidence.

Quote:

The thing is, whether or not you think race exists depends on your definition and where you draw the line. Personally, I find it a petty separation akin to eye color. It's something that you can use to sort people into groups based on attributes, which can have definitive results even with people who all look the same. It may or may not be useful depending on the application. As an example, I know it's immensely useful to police in identification.

If there are behavioral differences which arose as a consequence of divergent evolution, which should logically be presumed and which is easily observable, then it's entirely rational to research those differences and modify social policy around the results. For example, if (as so many cross-cultural and twin studies have found) Black people are, on average, less intelligent than Caucasians and Asians, and are also more prone to impulsive/potentially criminal behavior, then it would only make sense to be honest about the situation and make the appropriate societal reforms. To continue living in multiracial nations under the presumption that the only differences amongst people are entirely culturally-influenced, aside from being Utopian and pseudoscientific, is ultimately unfair to all racial groups.

And on more recent studies, even MRI data has confirmed what Physical Anthropologists, using more primitive methods, realized decades ago - Negroids (on average) have smaller brains than do Caucasoids and Mongoloids:

"Racial differences in brain size have been established recently using wet brain weight at autopsy, volume of empty skulls using filler, volume estimated from head sizes, and MRI. Using brain mass at autopsy, Ho et al. (1980) reported a 100 gram difference in brain weight between Whites and Blacks in the U.S. Using endocranial volume Beals, Smith and Dodd (1984, p. 307, Table 5) analyzed about 20,000 skulls from around the world. East Asians and Europeans averaged 1,389 cm[sup 3] while Africans averaged 1,268 cm[sup 3]. Using external head measures to calculate cranial capacities, Rushton (1992) analyzed a sample of thousands of U.S. Army personnel. Even after correcting for body size, Asian and European Americans averaged 1,398 cm[sup 3], while African Americans averaged 1,359 cm[sup 3]. Rushton (1994) reported a study of tens of thousands of men and women collected by the International Labour Office in Geneva, Switzerland. Head sizes (corrected for body size) were larger for East Asians and Europeans than for Blacks. Moreover, a recent MRI study found that people of African and Caribbean background averaged a smaller brain volume than did those of European background (Harvey, Persaud, Ron, Baker & Murray, 1994). *continued here: http://www.geocities.com/race_articl...view_race.html

It's impossible that a group having significantly smaller brains -when compared with a population which has a higher average cranial capacity- is not going to behave differently and also be at a certain disadvantage in a multiracial society.

As for race being arbitrary, that's exactly what you would expect from a species originating from the same region (Africa), then dispersing throughout the rest of the world. Of course there is going to be a continuum. However, just because you can theoretically choose to draw the racial line anywhere, doesn't negate that race actually exists. For example: One day I could arbitrarily decide that "only people 6 ft. tall with blond hair and green eyes are members of my race," does declaration somehow prove that height and hair/eye color are just imagined social constructs? Of course not. Pay attention to point #3 on the 10 Fallacies of Race Denial video.